RE: [asa] Rejoinder 9C from Timaeus - to George Murphy

George,

In looking over (not yet reading in great detail) the article on the proposed explanation for the virgin birth, I find several fundamental questions and thoughts come to mind.

1. I find myself usually drawn to "natural" explanations of Biblical miracles, such as how the parting of the Red Sea, the manna, or the burning bush could have been natural occurrences used by God. And yet, I have often asked myself, Why? Why do I find such seemingly inordinate affection for finding a natural explanation for such things, rather than just accepting the Biblical account as an act of God? Is it that I find such things more believable as natural events, rather than acts of divine fiat? If so, why? Have I partaken too much of post-Enlightenment naturalistic philosophy, that finds it difficult to accept things that don't have natural explanations? Does anyone else besides me struggle with this kind of question?

2. On the other hand, as mankind increasingly discovers the capacity and amazing variety of natural phenomena, and in the light of those discoveries we continue to reevaluate God's action in the world, maybe such ideas are part of a revelatory process by which God is showing how he can and does actually work in the world. For instance, to use one example, if we find that the plagues on Egypt were all possible (even if extraordinary) phenomena, then our conception of God's action has changed. Instead of making new frogs out of dust, God (to use your term) "cooperates" with the ordinary forces of nature, to ensure that the unlikely but possible events all occurred precisely on cue.

It's not like Timaeus characterizes, 95% natural and 5% God, but 95-100% natural and 100% God. God "cooperated" with nature, so that he was fully engaged in determining the outcomes. The above formulation sounds surprisingly similar to the formulation of the Incarnation -- Jesus was 100% God and 100% man.

3. Isn't the above getting at what you meant by "kenosis" in relation to creation? Rather than using unnatural fiat activity, God subordinates his action primarily to the realm of influencing natural forces into action according to His divine will and timing? In my example of the plagues, (to use your terminology) the set of "divine miracles" could overlap with the set of "natural phenomena".

4. Returning to the discussion with Timaeus for a moment, I think this gets back to a fundamental distinction. If God acted as I described in the plagues of Egypt, from an ID perspective the broad picture of Moses in Egypt is seen as "intelligent design" over the events in question. From a TE perspective, this set of events could be described by methodological naturalism; i.e. (at least hypothetically) each event could be explained in terms of natural forces acting in unlikely but ordinary ways. I think there is value and truth in both perspectives, but I don't understand how to describe God's interaction with nature in "scientific" terms, as ID apparently tries to do.

One could say that God "caused" some rapid increase in frog population. Then the lice and the flies were natural consequences of the huge piles of dead frogs (I don't know, I'm just speculating at this point). Then God "brought" a disease on the cattle to produce the boils, and so on. But in saying that "God caused" or "brought" or "influenced" the natural forces, it seems we have left the realm of science almost entirely except for the parts which could already be explained without reference to God at all. Thus, for the Christian these events are seen in the light of faith, and for atheists trying to discredit the Bible, they are seen as examples of why divine explanations are unnecessary.

5. And yet, in reference to the article on the Incarnation of Christ, I find that particular one to be "over the top" for me. In one sense, an androgynous Christ might have some theological appeal, in that he can fully represent both men and women. But this was never theologically necessary, as we always imagined Him representing all humankind before this scientific hypothesis. Postulating a possible natural (though extremely unlikely) generation of the physical body of Christ is so far "beyond the pale" naturalistically, that it's still in the category of "miraculous fiat", not to mention it's pure speculation and could never be proven. It's like trying to suggest a naturalistic explanation for the wine at Cana. It seems not only completely unnecessary, but to me it feels like it steals away some of wonder at the mystery of the Biblical events.

In this, I have to sympathize somewhat with those who feel like the mystery and wonder of other Biblical miracles is lost in the search for increasingly natural explanations, like the Big Bang and evolution explaining the mystery of "creation", or a very large Mesopotamian hurricane explaining the Biblical flood. It's not that those things might not be correct explanations, but it does seem sometimes that the "life" of those events is sucked out by the increasing emphasis on the "natural" mechanisms. This is why I appreciate the articles by the Haarsmas (such as in "Perspectives...") and others, in trying to restore a focus on the wonder of God's activity, while simultaneously exploring the natural phenomena. I think this focus is too often missing from these discussions, and is probably one reason why TE doesn't make more and faster headway with the average Christian. It doesn't appeal to most of us theologically in the same way that traditional "miracles" do.

Jon Tandy

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 1:51 PM
To: asa@lists.calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Rejoinder 9C from Timaeus - to George Murphy

In my latest response to Timaeus I've gone into a bit more detail about kenosis, but want to reply briefly to Jon's comments about the virginal conception of Jesus.

While I think many modern theologians underestimate the textual & theological support for this, there is no indication in any of Paul's writings that he was familiar with the claim that Jesus was conceived of a virgin. Of course that doesn't mean it's not true but does point to the fact that if it is true, Mary would be the only person who would have direct evidence of it. In that sense it is a miracle that's pretty well hidden, in contrast to his healings, crucifixion & resurrection. (According to I
Cor.15 there were > 500 witnesses to the risen Christ.)

Then we have to ask in what sense the virginal conception of Christ was "miraculous." Was it something entirely beyond the capacities of creatures?
25 years ago Edward Kessel published "A Proposed Biological Interpretation of the Virgin Birth" in the asa journal (now PSCF) - http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1983/JASA9-83Kessel.html . Whether or not the mechanism he discussed would be capable of producing a viable male human I am not competent to decide, but this does point up the fact that the set of "miracles" need not be disjoint from that of "natural phenomena."

Shalom
George
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 19 07:33:20 2008